Skip to main content
Log in

Reassessing medicare trends in diagnostic CT colonography after achieving CPT code category I status

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Compare national trends in utilization and coverage of diagnostic (non-screening) computed tomography colonography (CTC) in the Medicare population before and after achieving Current Procedural Terminology® (CPT) Category I code status in 2010.

Methods

Claims by provider type and location for diagnostic CTC were identified between 2005 and 2013 using Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files. Frequencies of billed and denied services were used to calculate denial rates for CTC and abdominal computed tomography (CT). PubMed search for articles with “CT colonography” in abstract or title during 1997–2013 was performed. Publications were recorded yearly and matched to CTC denial rates.

Results

Annual Medicare claims for diagnostic CTC increased 212% during 2005–2009 in Category III status and increased 27.4% during 2009–2013 after implementation of Category I codes. Claims for abdominal CT rose 13.4% over the same overall period. Denial rates decreased from 70% to 32.8% between 2005 and 2009, and fluctuated between 24.7 and 30.6% thereafter. Denial rates for abdominal CT remained constant (4.1%–4.6%). From 2005 to 2013, services grew most in the private office (1678–7293) and hospital outpatient (1644–6449) settings with radiologists performing 93.3% of CTC. 1037 CTC publications were identified which increased 3567% between 1997 (3) and 2008 (107), plateaued until 2010 (114) and declined thereafter (75 in 2013).

Conclusions

Diagnostic CTC grew dramatically from 2005 to 2009, but slowed thereafter; even after achieving CPT Category I code status in 2010. Medicare denial rates declined during early years but later stabilized which paralleled a slowing in new peer-reviewed research. CTC continues to be performed predominately by radiologists in the outpatient setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society (2011) Colorectal cancer facts & figures 2011–2013. GA: Atlanta

    Google Scholar 

  2. Maciosek MV, Solberg LI, Coffield AB, Edwards NM, Goodman MJ (2006) Colorectal cancer screening: health impact and cost effectiveness. Am J Prev Med 31:80–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pickhardt PJ (2006) Incidence of colonic perforation at CT colonography: review of existing data and implications for screening of asymptomatic adults. Radiology 239(2):313–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yee J, Keysor KJ, Kim DH (2013) The time has arrived for national reimbursement of screening CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(1):73–79. doi:10.2214/AJR.13.10656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, et al. (2008) Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 359(12):1207–1217. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0800996

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D, et al. (2009) Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut 58(2):241–248. doi:10.1136/gut.2008.156448

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349(23):2191–2200

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yee J, Kim DH, Rosen MP, et al. (2014) ACR Appropriateness Criteria colorectal cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 11(6):543–551. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2014.02.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. American College of Radiology (2015) USPSTF Refusal to name CT Colonography a recommended screening tool may slow colorectal cancer screening progress and increase spending. American College of Radiology newswise. http://www.newswise.com/articles/uspstf-refusal-to-name-ct-colonography-a-recommended-screening-tool-may-slow-colorectal-cancer-screening-progress-and-increase-spending. Accessed 6 Oct 2015

  10. Raab GG, Parr DH (2006) From medical invention to clinical practice: the reimbursement challenge facing new device procedures and technology-part 1: issues in medical device assessment. J Am Coll Radiol 3(9):694–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Duszak R Jr, Optican RJ, Brin KP, Woodard PK (2011) Cardiac CT and coronary CTA: early Medicare claims analysis of national and regional utilization and coverage. J Am Coll Radiol 8(8):549–555. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2010.12.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Duszak R Jr, Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ (2011) Expanding utilization and regional coverage of diagnostic CT colonography: early Medicare claims experience. J Am Coll Radiol 8(4):235–241. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2010.08.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Duszak R Jr (2004) CT colonography and virtual reimbursement. J Am Coll Radiol 7:457–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2012) Data from the 100 percent Denominator File. http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/MedicareMedicaidStatSupp/Downloads/2013_Section2.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2015

  15. National Center for Biotechnology Information (2015) PubMed help. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK3827/ Accessed 21 Oct 2015

  16. Friedman AC, Downing D, Chino J, et al. (2010) Feasibility of Remote CT Colonography at Two Rural Native American Medical Centers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(5):1110–1117. doi:10.2214/AJR.10.4383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. American College of Radiology (2014) ACR-SAR-SCBT-MR Practice parameter for the performance of computed tomography (CT) colonography in adults. http:www.acr.org/~/media/A81531ACA92F45058A83B5281E8FE826.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2015 [S]

  18. Rockey DC, Barish M, Brill JV, et al. (2007) Standards for gastroenterologists for performing and interpreting diagnostic computed tomographic colonography. Gastroenterology 133(3):1005–1024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cash BD, Rockey DC, Brill JV (2011) AGA standards for gastroenterologists for performing and interpreting diagnostic computed tomography colonography: 2011 update. Gastroenterology 141(6):2240–2266. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2011.09.043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ (2010) Radiologists should read CT colonography. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 20(2):259–269. doi:10.1016/j.giec.2010.02.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. American College of Radiology. ACR Whitepaper on Split Interpretations. http://www.acr.org/Membership/Legal-Business-Practices/Stark-Self-Referral/ACR-Whitepaper-on-Split-Interpretations. Accessed 15 Dec 2015

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelly Cox.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Kelly Cox DO, Richard Duszak Jr. MD, Jennifer Hemingway, MS, Danny R. Hughes PhD, and Sadhna B. Nandwana MD declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cox, K., Duszak, R., Hemingway, J. et al. Reassessing medicare trends in diagnostic CT colonography after achieving CPT code category I status. Abdom Radiol 41, 1357–1362 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0636-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0636-8

Keywords

Navigation